Chris Moyles: not easily cloned. Photograph: David Fisher/Rex Features

As part of its argument for reducing the fees of a handful of starry BBC radio DJs and presenters, the report by the Commons public accounts select committee published today says: "There is no obvious core skill for presenters that cannot be found by seeking out new talent."

Well, of course the BBC need to engage in a constant talent search, but the inconvenient truth is that very few people have the knack of doing live, interactive radio day after day: nearly 8 million people lap up Wake Up to Wogan and a similar number opt for Chris Moyles.

The longevity of Terry Wogan and Chris Evans is explained by fast wit, indestructible cheerfulness, and a huge well of public affection. Moyles's blokey rudeness cannot be cloned, nor Adrian Chiles's doggedness.

This is called star quality. It is rare, and those who have it expect to be rewarded. I often scroll through the roster of local radio stations on the motorway from London to mid-Wales and there is a vast, dire gap between the two levels: Premier League to League Two.

And as Diversity's win proved, power resides with the audience – viewers and listeners anoint the stars, not the BBC, and we turn off when we have had enough.

Several things are going on in this report. First, the MPs on the PAC are stung at the BBC's refusal to release confidential details of top star salaries. They seem to suggest the BBC has been conniving to keep the details secret. But, more than that, they fundamentally dislike the fact they do not have the same swingeing powers over the BBC as they do over other public bodies. That is a deliberate policy, to protect the BBC's independence. And it is healthy.

Secondly, they also have caught the BBC being economical with the truth. The BBC Trust's 2008 report On Screen and On Air Talent concluded that the corporation was not paying more than its commercial rivals for presenters and DJs on the whole. But the MPs found the caveat – the BBC Trust report actually said fees for a small number of stars on national radio stations are much higher than the commercial sector.

The MPs have absorbed the commercial radio argument that the BBC vastly overpays because it has so much more money, and is adrift from the market. They therefore rubbish the BBC approach, which divides the cost of programmes by the millions of people who tune in.

In the 1990s Capital Radio used to boast about its huge pay deals with Chris Tarrant. At the start of commercial radio in the 1970s, the bigger regional stations such as BRMB and LBC had extremely powerful DJs. Not any more.

I'm not saying that talent costs shouldn't be cut. It is clear that Jonathan Ross's reported £18m three-year deal, with £530,000 just for his saturday morning Radio 2 gig, has poisoned the debate.

The ground has shifted away from excess. But it is not easy to immediately tear up contracts and take advantage of recessionary market conditions.

Where the MPs strike a useful blow is in the revelation that presenters' salaries account for three quarters of the staff costs of some BBC radio programmes.

This means that efficiency cuts are falling on the place where there is least fat – researchers, producers. That really must change.

So, for sure, make some disproportionate savings from the top talent. But I balk at the suggestion that the BBC should benchmark itself too tightly against commercial radio, which is creatively in a dire state, a condition not just down to poverty and poor advertising.

Nor should the BBC homogenise its spending so that a Radio 3 play costs exactly the same as The Archers. We want diversity.